August 20, 2024
ADHD is associated with deficits in cognitive functions. These include such executive functions as reaction time, motor and interference inhibition, sustained attention, and working memory.
To what extent can ADHD medications compensate for such deficits? A recent meta-analysis by a European study team has explored this question. It suggests that while medication cannot completely reverse deficits in executive functions, it can lead to significant improvements.
Based on consistent evidence from many randomized double-blind controlled trials (RCTs) measuring behavioral improvements, first line treatment for ADHD is with stimulant medication while second-line treatment (for stimulant non-responders, or poor tolerability) is with non-stimulant medication (atomoxetine, viloxazine, guanfacine and clonidine).
This systematic literature search yielded eighteen RCTs, not all of which covered the same executive functions or medicines.
Meta-analyses yielded the following results:
Eleven RCTs, encompassing 925 participants, found a small-to-medium effect size improvement with methylphenidate. Variation (heterogeneity) among these studies was moderate, and there was no sign of publication bias.
Four RCTs with a total of 286 participants similarly reported a small-to-medium effect size improvement with atomoxetine. Again, heterogeneity was moderate, with no indication of publication bias.
Sixteen RCTs, with a combined 1,335 participants, found a medium effect size improvement with methylphenidate. Heterogeneity was moderate, and there was some indication of publication bias. No effort was made to correct for publication bias.
Three RCTs, encompassing 254 persons, found a medium effect size improvement with atomoxetine. Heterogeneity was moderate, with no evidence of publication bias.
Thirteen RCTs, with a total of 1,201 participants, found a small-to-medium effect size improvement with methylphenidate. Heterogeneity was moderate, with marginal indication of publication bias.
Six RCTs with a combined 753 individuals, reported a medium effect size improvement with atomoxetine. Heterogeneity was high, but there was no evidence of publication bias.
Nine RCTs, with a total of 1,025 participants, found a small-to-medium effect size improvement with methylphenidate. Heterogeneity was moderate, with no indication of publication bias.
Three RCTs with a combined 132 individuals, reported a statistically nonsignificant small-to-medium effect size improvement with atomoxetine. Heterogeneity was moderate, with no indication of publication bias. The nonsignificant outcome may have been due to the much smaller number of participants.
The team concluded, “these meta-analyses of chronic effects of stimulants and non-stimulants on executive functions in ADHD showed significant improvements with both methylphenidate and with atomoxetine in all cognitive domains tested with relatively similar effect sizes, and no statistical differences between them. The findings hence suggest comparable positive effects of both ADHD medication types on the most relevant executive functions in ADHD, suggesting for the first time that stimulant and non-stimulant ADHD medications, when taking [sic] longer-term, not only improve behavioural symptoms of ADHD, but also improve executive function performance, and to a similar degree.”
Ferdous Isfandnia, Sahid El Masri, Joaquim Radua, and Katya Rubia, “The Effects of Chronic Administration of Stimulant and Non-stimulant Medications on Executive Functions in ADHD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews (2024), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105703.
Background
ADHD (Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder) is one of the most studied neurodevelopmental conditions, with many clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness and safety of various medications. These trials, known as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), are considered the gold standard for assessing treatments. However, strict eligibility criteria often exclude many real-world patients, raising questions about whether the findings from these trials apply to everyday clinical settings.
Our latest study sheds light on this issue, revealing just how many individuals with ADHD might be excluded from RCTs and the impact this exclusion has on their treatment outcomes.
Method
Researchers used Swedish national registries to analyze data from 189,699 individuals diagnosed with ADHD who started medication between 2007 and 2019. They applied exclusion criteria from 164 international RCTs to identify who would have been considered ineligible for these trials in order to determine the proportion of individuals with ADHD who would not meet the eligibility criteria for RCTs.
Key Findings
Many Patients Are Ineligible for Clinical Trials:
Ineligible Patients Face Unique Challenges:
Higher Risk of Adverse Outcomes:
What This Means
These findings highlight a major gap between the controlled environments of clinical trials and the realities faced by individuals with ADHD in everyday life. While RCTs provide valuable insights, their restrictive criteria often exclude patients with more complex health profiles or co-existing conditions. This limits the generalisability of trial results, meaning that treatment guidelines based solely on RCTs may not fully address the needs of all patients.
Conclusion
This study demonstrated that a significant proportion of individuals with ADHD, particularly adults, do not meet the eligibility criteria for standard RCTs. These results emphasize the importance of bridging the gap between research settings and real-world applications. By recognizing and addressing the limitations of RCTs, we can work towards more equitable and effective ADHD treatment strategies for everyone.
Background:
Our understanding of Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has grown and evolved considerably since it first appeared in the DSM-II as “Hyperkinetic Reaction of Childhood.” This study aimed to find the disorder’s placement within the modern psychopathology classification systems like the Hierarchical Taxonomy Of Psychopathology (HiTOP).
The HiTOP model aims to address limitations of traditional classification systems for mental illness, such as the DSM-5 and ICD-10, by organizing psychopathology according to evidence from research on observable patterns of mental health problems.. Is ADHD best categorized under externalizing conditions, neurodevelopmental disorders, or something else entirely? A recent study by Zheyue Peng, Kasey Stanton, Beatriz Dominguez-Alvarez, and Ashley L. Watts takes a closer look at this question using a symptom-focused approach.
The Study:
Traditionally, ADHD has been associated with externalizing behaviors, such as impulsivity and hyperactivity, or with neurodevelopmental traits, like cognitive delays. However, this study challenges the idea of placing ADHD into a single category. Instead, it maps ADHD symptoms across three major psychopathology spectra: externalizing, neurodevelopmental, and internalizing.
The findings reveal that ADHD symptoms don’t fit neatly into one box. For example, symptoms like impulsivity, poor school performance, and low perseverance were strongly associated with externalizing behaviors. On the other hand, cognitive disengagement (e.g., daydreaming, blank staring) and immaturity were closely linked to neurodevelopmental challenges. Interestingly, cognitive disengagement also showed ties to internalizing symptoms, such as anxiety or depression.
This research underscores the complexity of ADHD. Rather than treating ADHD as a single, unitary construct, the study advocates for a symptom-based approach to better understand and treat individuals. By acknowledging that ADHD symptoms relate to multiple psychopathology spectra, clinicians and researchers can move toward more nuanced classification systems and targeted interventions.
Conclusion:
Ultimately, this study highlights the need for modern systems to move beyond rigid categories and adopt a more flexible, symptom-focused framework for understanding ADHD’s place in psychopathology.
The Background:
Caffeine and its primary breakdown compounds – paraxanthine, theophylline, and theobromine (also the primary alkaloid in chocolate) – readily cross the placenta and tend to linger due to the underdevelopment of fetal caffeine metabolizing enzymes.
Could accumulating caffeine metabolites harm the developing fetal brain? Studies to date have come to contradictory conclusions, some finding an association, others finding none.
Norway has a national single-payer health insurance system with a national health registry comprehensively tracking virtually all residents.
The Methods:
An international study team used Norways’s registry, and its Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study (MoBa) to explore the relationship between maternal and paternal coffee consumption and offspring neurodevelopmental difficulties (ND), including symptoms of ADHD as determined from validated rating scales, using 58,964 mother-child pairs and 22,576 father-child pairs, covering the decade 1999-2008.
Unadjusted results indicated a strong association between maternal coffee consumption before and during pregnancy with offspring ADHD, but none with paternal coffee consumption. Superficially, that might seem like compelling evidence.
Yet after adjusting for education, income, smoking, and alcohol, “previously significant effects attenuated towards zero and some associations switched from being positive to negative.”
Then, after further adjusting for genetic confounding, ADHD symptoms at 1.5 years, 3 years, 5 years (on both of two different rating scales), and 8 years (including separate measures of inattention and hyperactivity symptoms) all became indistinguishable between offspring from mothers consuming coffee during pregnancy and offspring of mothers abstaining from coffee during pregnancy.
Conclusion:
The team concluded, “This study applied several conventional and genetic epidemiological approaches to investigate the potential relationship between maternal coffee consumption during pregnancy and offspring NDs [neurodevelopmental difficulties]. When considering the results of the conventional and genetic epidemiological analyses, as well as the broader literature, we conclude that there is little evidence that maternal coffee consumption during pregnancy is strongly causally related to offspring NDs.”
More specifically, the team found no evidence of any causal relationship with offspring ADHD.
_logo%201.svg)
